Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Ipod- fixed?
My ipod was dead for several days. It had a sad face on the screen and all of my attempts to charge, use, connect, restore, or even reboot into disk mode were failures. Apple's support site told me that it was in need of service repair, and since I don't have any warranty services or whatever, it would cost a pretty penny to fix.
My Dad tried to pry it open with his keys, figuring "hey, if it's broken, we might as well open it up and have a look." He was likewise unsuccessful.
Then, all of a sudden, while trying to wrestle it open, it turned on and it was running in normal mode! It's working now, but I don't trust it... we'll see what happens in the next couple of weeks.
If my ipod really ends up failing on me, I was be completely music-less in my travels, since my car stereo was ripped off about 6 months ago...
Monday, March 19, 2007
Intelligence is something of a scourge to neuroscientists and the rest of human kind alike. Its definition and understanding has flipped, swayed, and morphed over the last 100 years so much that the confusion around it is more than beguiling.
I am a believer of the multiple intelligences idea- that there are different types of brain specializations that cannot qualitatively be compared against each other to show how smart one person is over another, as we often try to do today. E.g., a pianist vs. an athlete or an accountant. I also am a believer that these different types of intelligence may possibly use the same exact methods- hierarchical temporal memory systems interacting with lower-level brain structures (emotional, etc.) and motor generator circuits.
However, today I just want to talk about that area of intelligence that we typically use in our daily life(without care) to describe how smart somebody is. What I mean is that quality of some person that we describe as that broad result of their genes, their grades in school, and their breadth of knowledge that we perceive when we interact with them.
I am a believer of the multiple intelligences idea- that there are different types of brain specializations that cannot qualitatively be compared against each other to show how smart one person is over another, as we often try to do today. E.g., a pianist vs. an athlete or an accountant. I also am a believer that these different types of intelligence may possibly use the same exact methods- hierarchical temporal memory systems interacting with lower-level brain structures (emotional, etc.) and motor generator circuits.
However, today I just want to talk about that area of intelligence that we typically use in our daily life(without care) to describe how smart somebody is. What I mean is that quality of some person that we describe as that broad result of their genes, their grades in school, and their breadth of knowledge that we perceive when we interact with them.
I believe that this understanding of intelligence can be separated into two semi-distinct areas. One, is that amount of knowledge- or Memory. This is a common judgement of someone's intelligence. We see it in game shows like jeopardy, Who wants to be a millionaire, and in most tests that we are given in the school system. This area of intelligence is simply due to (first, of course the underlying allowing structure and ability provided by the genome) the amount of stimuli and the ability to retain the stimuli representations. If I never learn anything intelligent or retain anything I've learned, I won't appear to be so smart.
I think the second area- which may even be more important- is the ORGANIZATION of this knowledge. It is how somebody's thoughts are structured. It is what pops out to somebody when they process some stimulus because of how their output is structured in accordance with that input.
For instance, If I remember everything from the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", that would be very impressive. I would probably do very well on a comprehension test. However, if I don't organize my thoughts and beliefs in accordance to what I've read, I won't get much good out of it. If I don't associate some of the meanings from the book with other meanings in life that can be equated with some of the situations in the book, then I won't be able to apply the book to anything in my life, and I will not have gotten much good from it.
I believe that this organization quality of intelligence is what makes somebody creative, or intuitive. I believe it is also what makes somebody "level-headed" or have great "common-sense". Further, I feel that if I want to be very sharp, wise, smart, agile, etc. (indeed, intelligent in all of it's forms) I need to master this essence of having an organized mind model. I think it takes both areas- amount of knowledge, and organization of it- to be truly intelligent in the sense that we use in our daily language.
I'll leave this post with a question- How can I purposefully make my organization better? Is this something that I can modify by learning a lot and consciously making connections and metaphors with other parts of my knowledge? Or is it handled by my genes exclusively, meaning that all I can do is learn and lot and read a lot, hoping that my brain will organize it well due to its ability to structure my neuronal connections in accordance with my DNA?
...Maybe both?
Labels: intelligence, knowledge, organization, smart
Thursday, March 15, 2007
What skill would you like to improve?
I saw this question asked on somebody else's blog, and I immediately got a rush of excitement. I thought it was a great question because it shows what your short term and long terms goals are (or how they are affected), and it also gives the answerer an opportunity to reflect on their self-image and organize their scattered thoughts into ones that are progressive. We should all do this from time to time.
The problem is: I can sit here and rattle off about 50 skills that I want to improve- and I'm not stretching it either. Don't believe me?
creative writing, drawing, speed reading, critical thinking, quick thinking (on my feet), inhibitions, running, keeping a healthy diet, basketball (collection of skills), designing interfaces, organizing, keeping to schedules, scoping time and projects, social skills, speaking skills, speaking in public, story telling, snowboarding, backpacking, survivor skills, beer brewing, graphic design, 3D and CAD Design, building with raw materials, fixing automobiles...
I'm half way there and I haven't even gotten to my relationship skills, household skills, and any work-specific skills like project strategy,prototyping, or web design skills...and it only took me a minute or two.
Am I too unfocused? I mean- it's really unrealistic for me to reach a level that I'd be happy with in just a few of these areas, let alone all of them! But, why can't I just stick to a few things I am good at and make myself better? Why do I spread myself so thin? Am I lessening my potential for greatness??? Am I a scatter-brained, indecisive, identity-less dreamer?
Anyway, I realized the question was asking for the ONE skill most desired to improve. So, my answer is doing comical impressions of mutual friends.
The problem is: I can sit here and rattle off about 50 skills that I want to improve- and I'm not stretching it either. Don't believe me?
creative writing, drawing, speed reading, critical thinking, quick thinking (on my feet), inhibitions, running, keeping a healthy diet, basketball (collection of skills), designing interfaces, organizing, keeping to schedules, scoping time and projects, social skills, speaking skills, speaking in public, story telling, snowboarding, backpacking, survivor skills, beer brewing, graphic design, 3D and CAD Design, building with raw materials, fixing automobiles...
I'm half way there and I haven't even gotten to my relationship skills, household skills, and any work-specific skills like project strategy,prototyping, or web design skills...and it only took me a minute or two.
Am I too unfocused? I mean- it's really unrealistic for me to reach a level that I'd be happy with in just a few of these areas, let alone all of them! But, why can't I just stick to a few things I am good at and make myself better? Why do I spread myself so thin? Am I lessening my potential for greatness??? Am I a scatter-brained, indecisive, identity-less dreamer?
Anyway, I realized the question was asking for the ONE skill most desired to improve. So, my answer is doing comical impressions of mutual friends.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Philosophy of Argument: Use this tool
The next time you're involved in an argument with a person (as opposed to a lamp or guinea pig), here's a great weapon to keep in your arsenal: the redirect. It's name is derived from the move in martial arts where you take an opponent's hit and gracefully use their momentum to redirect the blow back towards them. It works well in martial arts and it works just as nicely in argumentation.
here's an example:
Person 1: Killer whales kill people! They are dangerous and we need to rethink whether or not humans should be interacting with them as pets and performers!
Person 2: No no no, orcas are friendly, intelligent creatures. When you hear about attacks and fatalities in the news, it is usually because the orcas are just playing. They don't mean to harm the people.
Person 1: Exactly! You are absolutely right and that's my case in point right there. Whether killer whales have intent or not, they are still dangerous!
Person 2: hmm, I'm in your corner now. Well done.
Ok, so the last comment is figurative. But this is what person 2 would probably be thinking...
See, what you do is you take one person's point or counterpoint, and you validate it and at the same time show how it actually supports your claim! If you are successful in this endeavor, the result is that your opponent has his/her argumentative fire minimized significantly and it forces them to teeter on the thought that you and him/her are really on the same page, but that you were just there first! I'm not saying that they won't still have a counterpoint afterwards, but if you use this tool, the likelihood of having a great counterpoint in light of your redirect will be greatly decreased.
It's a simple weapon to use, but it's hard to master. You can't use it often either. But when you see an opportunity, you attack!
here's an example:
Person 1: Killer whales kill people! They are dangerous and we need to rethink whether or not humans should be interacting with them as pets and performers!
Person 2: No no no, orcas are friendly, intelligent creatures. When you hear about attacks and fatalities in the news, it is usually because the orcas are just playing. They don't mean to harm the people.
Person 1: Exactly! You are absolutely right and that's my case in point right there. Whether killer whales have intent or not, they are still dangerous!
Person 2: hmm, I'm in your corner now. Well done.
Ok, so the last comment is figurative. But this is what person 2 would probably be thinking...
See, what you do is you take one person's point or counterpoint, and you validate it and at the same time show how it actually supports your claim! If you are successful in this endeavor, the result is that your opponent has his/her argumentative fire minimized significantly and it forces them to teeter on the thought that you and him/her are really on the same page, but that you were just there first! I'm not saying that they won't still have a counterpoint afterwards, but if you use this tool, the likelihood of having a great counterpoint in light of your redirect will be greatly decreased.
It's a simple weapon to use, but it's hard to master. You can't use it often either. But when you see an opportunity, you attack!
Labels: argument, momentum, philosophy, redirect, tool